Is there a right to abortion, and if so, where does the right come from?

Just you wait—anti-abortion forces will try to pass a national law banning abortion. The forces of darkness are determined to make women second-class citizens.

 

This was not the case before Omicron. Since Omicron, many mandates have been dropped.

Now, if we have a surge of cases in the Fall and a new vaccines effective against Omicron is available as planned, "following the science" will put us back where we were before Omicron.

 

How are they going to establish that someone assisting a pregnant woman to travel out-of-state is intending to help her obtain and abortion?

 

"Half-individuals?" Total nonsense.

 

Welcome to America…. The SCOTUS has not made a ruling yet….as a leaked draft indicates one member wants to put abortion back into the states responsible… Vote the anti-abortion forces out… maybe not in your country but that is how it’s done here in America.

 

So the “vaccines are working “ up until now is a lie? Your version of science ( Mr Fauci) is all over the place… the mandates were political, not science. The rules for Delta still remain vaccinated and unvaccinated can be infected and transmit the disease , are hospitalized or die. The rules for Omicron are the same…The only argument left is the vaccinated get less sick… and even that does not factor in natural immunity.

 

Failure of properly use birth control is EXTREMELY rare and almost impossible these days. Combine the pill with a condom and don't have sexual intercourse during your fertility period and the woman will not get pregnant and take it a step further and take a morning after pill, do an at home pregnancy test. And take responsibilty.

The discussion started with the demand that if we restrictions abortion then all BC has to be free. That is nonsense.

 

So according to you rights do not apply to women and only women can be aborted..................? Yes or no.

 

As I have noted health of the mother is a canard. Barely a blip and "health of the mother" does not specifically mean her LIFE is threatened which or course we all agree if the mother will die ending the pregnancy is called for because the baby will not survive anyway.

 

I've said nothing of the sort what I have shown you from several sources is abortion is never needed to save the life of the mother and your fallacious conflating of every health issue into a life and death situation.

 

According to me? I never said the words in the DOI are explicit. You did.

 

You just said it again.
I showed you the statistics, about 2.7% of abortions are medical reasons.
You keep saying never is an abortion to save the life of the mother. Several times now.
An untreated medical situation can lead to death. And if death isn't the outcome, the quality of life of the pregnant woman can be jeopardized.

 

You would do well to examine the actual case.

Jane ROE, et al., Appellants, v. Henry WADE

 

Then why are you making it so?
Then why are you making it so?
Why do you?
I did.

 

I do believe in today's world, rights to apply to women. I don't believe in today's world the words written are explicit. There is nothing absolute about the constitution.
All rights have restrictions of some form.

But, I do believe the writers did exclude women. I believe they chose each and every word very carefully. Also, there had to be an amendment to allow women a right to vote. And an amendment to give black people full personhood.

 

Health of the mother does not equal life of the mother so stop conflating them. I cited you THREE sources including an ob/gyn/pediatrician association and the AMA.

 

So do our inherent rights apply to women? What about blacks?

 

Does it? Where in the Constitution is there any reference to persons who haven't been born?

Anti-abortion types have decided the fetus is a person and ignored the Constitution.

 

No such thing as inherent rights.
In today's world, those man made written rights are to belong to all people in the USA. Even though some minority groups are trying be be excluded by some.

 

No you didn't.

IS REDUCING ABORTIONS SOMETHING WORTH SPENDING TAXPAYER MONEY ON. YES OR NO?

 

For political reasons, SCOTUS failed to protect the rights of women to control their own bodies. Women weren't even recognized as full citizens until the 20th Century.

If anything, SCOTUS should throw out any statute suggesting the fetus is a person with rights.

 

These TRUTHS to be SELF EVIDENT........

 

I'll say it again then

Health of the mother does not equal life of the mother so stop conflating them. I cited you THREE sources including an ob/gyn/pediatrician association and the AMA.

 

DEPENDS ON HOW IT IS SPENT, WHAT MONEY AND HOW. If it is for something the woman sure take her own responsibility for NO. Why should the taxpayer pay for it. Should I get all my medications for free because it could cut down on a hospital stay? And AGAIN Medicaid already pays for poor women. So why should the taxpayer pay for everyone else.

 

Those in power are taking away the limited rights SCOTUS recognized with Roe v. Wade. There is nothing in the Constitution recognizing unborn persons.